/lit/ - Literature

>>18529468
>how does inductive investigation only ever yield probabilities?

>>18331332

>>18120231
See, you've used reason to arrive at your belief, which you hold above other beliefs, meaning there is objective truth that isn't necessarily derived from experience. You have 'argued' for your opinion, which I take to be inspired by other beliefs of yours taken from some 'scientific fundamentals' (you're an epistemological foundationalist).

Kant already proved that we can, through experience, learn of unchanging truths (this he called synthetic a priori knowledge). In classical Humean epistemology, there are only "Matters of Fact" which are synthetic a posteriori and "Relations of Ideas" which are analytic a priori (truths of this category are true by virtue of what the definitions entail, meaning these types of propositions are tautological). However, using mathematics as an example, we know that "1+2=3", but to say that its analytic is to say that the predicate "1" carries within it every other number (2+1=3, 3+1=4, ad infinitum). This is clearly absurd. The synthesis of “1” and “1” creates something outside of itself, a predicate not contained within it but which is connected to it. Thus, here we have a synthetic form of knowledge, as the truth of the predicate is not contained in the subject, but is true a priori.

There are other truths that are synthetic a priori, like the principle of sufficient reason. This is one metaphysical principle that springs forth a great number of metaphysical systems. Schopenhauer used it in his "World as Will and Representation" to argue for the necessity of the subject-object dichotomy, and how all is one in its noumenal form (and only multiplicitious in its phenomenal expression). Many theists argue for the existence of God as the first cause given the logical impossibility for a non-necessary physical and contingent first cause (Aquinas demonstrated that God is purely actual, necessary, atemporal, and more from this). All this from a Foundationalist and reason-based method. Even your own philosophy has real problems, like the problem of induction, the fact that something came from nothing violating all known principles and scientific laws, as well as the irreducability of consciousness (which is contrary to what eliminative materialists would assume). Given your pompous arrogance and low intelligence (something that cannot possibly be changed), I suggest that you kill yourself.

(1/2)

>>18010333
this, so much this!!!

>Can we please have just one non-meme, non-shill, thread in which to discuss this book, please?